It has been observed that Christians spend a great deal of time seeking martyrdom, they find persecution where it does not exist; where they can't find any, they make themselves so disagreeable as to invite it. However, every group seem indulge in this self-mortification: a small, harmless cross on public property during Christmas provoke the ire of Atheists, the trial of O.J. Simpson incite mass rally against the racism of the entire justice system, there is a vast left wing conspiracy controlling all the networks, there is a vast right wing conspiracy against the president, disagreements amount to a full on attack upon my personal liberty, an assembly of mine enemies inclose me, like lions they maul my hands and feet. Is there a folly more universal then to see the enemy's hand at every misfortune, or to keep ourselves ever mortified by the thought that our foes are everywhere to persecute us? Why must people keep themselves perpetually vexed with this illusion of oppression?

It has been observed that Christians spend a great deal of time seeking martyrdom, they find persecution where it does not exist; where they can't find any, they make themselves so disagreeable as to invite it. However, every group seem indulge in this self-mortification: a small, harmless cross on public property during Christmas provoke the ire of Atheists, the trial of O.J. Simpson incite mass rally against the racism of the entire justice system, there is a vast left wing conspiracy controlling all the networks, there is a vast right wing conspiracy against the president, disagreements amount to a full on attack upon my personal liberty, an assembly of mine enemies inclose me, like lions they maul my hands and feet. Is there a folly more universal then to see the enemy's hand at every misfortune, or to keep ourselves ever mortified by the thought that our foes are everywhere to persecute us? Why must people keep themselves perpetually vexed with this illusion of oppression?

No, they spend the most time seeking self-validation through meaningless sex. Whores of Babylon. All of them. All.

While I will concede that this may also be a legitimate phenomenon, I also think that it is mostly a case of the extremes drowning out the vast majority of reasonable people out there. I think that most of us don't go looking for outrage, fabricated or otherwise, but the media and the anonymous jerks of the internet may make one think otherwise from time to time.

Because people love to play the victim. Yes, there have been cases in history where people have legitimately been the victim, but in a lot of modern contexts, it's attention-seeking more than anything.

That said, it's usually just a select few people of a certain demographic playing the victim, not whole demographics. Usually this stems from a sense of entitlement (i.e. they are not receiving their 'entitled' respect--of course, begging the question if they deserve any in the first place), which is a very human emotion. And, this is just me being opinionated, but I find entitlement to more or less be the basis of the mainstream American Culture.

Gives them a sense of grandeur that they're exceeding people at what they consider to be some form of self-betterment or key to heaven when it is in actual fact just completely meaningless criteria. Like playing an entire videogame without dying once and with only 1HP. Sure it's pretty impressive to a degree, and some people will commend you for it, but it doesn't make you any more special than that kid who flicks boogers at the teacher when her back is turned and not getting caught, because at the end of the day they're both pretty pointless, and some people might actually find booger flicking impressive.

All this talk reminds me of affirmative action. Affirmative action in education should be abolished.

Why, exactly?

There's a very legitimate reason behind affirmative action. The policies of the 1950s have disadvantage people of color by putting them in neighborhoods that were poorly funded, especially in the area of education. And, come 2000s... the only difference is that the policies are gone, but people of color are still concentrated in areas with poorly funded education more times than not. Affirmative action is an attempt to balance that disparity by giving people who live in poorly funded areas higher priority in the college admission process.

Given that race can only be used as a tie-breaker between two equally matched college admittees (as per one case involving UC Davis... Bacchi, I think?), colleges have shifted towards more direct metrics, such as actually looking at the average income of people in your neighborhood or city or taking into consideration their schools' funds.

Keep in mind, some of these schools can be so bad that they cannot offer AP classes or even A-G requirements, and yes, the cities in which these schools reside more often than not have a much higher concentration of people of color.

All this talk reminds me of affirmative action. Affirmative action in education should be abolished.

Why, exactly?

There's a very legitimate reason behind affirmative action. The policies of the 1950s have disadvantage people of color by putting them in neighborhoods that were poorly funded, especially in the area of education. And, come 2000s... the only difference is that the policies are gone, but people of color are still concentrated in areas with poorly funded education more times than not. Affirmative action is an attempt to balance that disparity by giving people who live in poorly funded areas higher priority in the college admission process.

Given that race can only be used as a tie-breaker between two equally matched college admittees (as per one case involving UC Davis... Bacchi, I think?), colleges have shifted towards more direct metrics, such as actually looking at the average income of people in your neighborhood or city or taking into consideration their schools' funds.

Keep in mind, some of these schools can be so bad that they cannot offer AP classes or even A-G requirements, and yes, the cities in which these schools reside more often than not have a much higher concentration of people of color.

Well, the bigger picture with affirmative action comes down to these viewpoints.

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 09: "ARGUING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION"
Sandel describes the 1996 court case of a white woman named Cheryl Hopwood who was denied admission to a Texas law school, even though she had higher grades and test scores than some of the minority applicants who were admitted. Hopwood took her case to court, arguing the school’s affirmative action program violated her rights. Students discuss the pros and cons of affirmative action. Should we try to correct for inequality in educational backgrounds by taking race into consideration? Should we compensate for historical injustices such as slavery and segregation? Is the argument in favor of promoting diversity a valid one? How does it size up against the argument that a student’s efforts and achievements should carry more weight than factors that are out of his or her control and therefore arbitrary? When a university’s stated mission is to increase diversity, is it a violation of rights to deny a white person admission?

TEDxSwarthmore - Barry Schwartz - Why Justice Isn't Enough
Whatever else a good society should be, it should be a just society. But what does it mean to say that a society is just? For most people, a just society is one in which people deserve what they get and people get what they deserve. Whereas it may be possible to achieve the first of these goals, it is not possible to achieve the second. This is true when it comes to admission to selective colleges, and it is true when it comes to any form of material success. Lots of people do not get what they deserve. Aside from merit, success depends on luck. If we appreciate the importance of luck in our own lives, we may be more favorably disposed to helping people who deserve success just as much as we do but haven't been as lucky.

Frequent TED and TEDx speaker Barry Schwartz is Dorwin P. Cartwright Professor of Social Theory and Social Action. His work explores the social and psychological effects of free-market economic institutions on moral, social, and civic concerns. In the book Practical Wisdom (2011), which Schwartz co-wrote with Kenneth Sharpe, William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Political Science, the authors argue that without such wisdom, neither detailed rules nor clever incentives will be enough to solve the problems we face.

In other words, the problem with our human laws like the affirmative action, with their intention being of "equalizing the playing-field"(not equality), is that they can only do so much once they've been enforced to the very letter of the laws. Until the universal law of averages rejects our sentimental ideals of us gaming the system, with its objective reality.

Before I begin, I would like to say that I am of minority so that you may not misconstrue my purposes from writing the following.

Your points are all valid and I will not argue those. However, nowadays, admissions departments also take into consideration your school district's socioeconomic situation.

Admissions counselors and staff know full well that not all schools can offer AP or even honors classes. Some students can't even take standardized tests (although I am certain that they could take it if they really wanted to since nowadays, you can get a voucher if you are from a low-income school district or are on a free/reduced lunch).

Not only that, but I believe that affirmative action puts a kind of strain on students today that should never be there in the first place simply because of their race. There is an implication that these students of minority cannot get into college because of their own achievements and merits. For Asians, on the other hand, they have to work twice as hard because of the perception that they have high GPAs and test scores. A majority of these Asians rise to the challenge and do score well but it only raises the bar even higher and puts so much stress on the students and the parents. You need not look far for evidence considering you are at the San Francisco Bay Area (as your location says) and the Internet is at your disposal. Moreover, Caucasian students have to constantly wonder whether they were denied admissions because of their race as well. Don't you think that affirmative action only encourages for more racism when that was not the intention in the first place?

I do believe you mean the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case. That case was about the racial quota that UC-Davis School of Med. admissions used. The argument was whether it violated the 14th amendment and the CRA of 1964. I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I believe that another major issue was whether it was constitutional to use race (adding to the points of the applicant) in a points-based admission system. Bakke was denied admission even though he had a GPA and standardized scores exceeding that of minority applicants. Except that he was not admitted because the med school needed to fill a quota of admitted minority students and had they admitted Bakke, they would fail in doing so.

Affirmative action had its place decades ago when racial profiling was rampant and if the students were direct first-degree descendants of the people wronged.

No one race should feel privileged.

But I digress, this topic is about people's auto-persecuting tendencies not affirmative action. Apologies for the tangent.

I was actually forced to take a Cultural Diversity class (FORCED) because I attend an HBCU in a very republican area.

People are designed to create a situation in order to fill a need they have. If you are bullied you will either become the victim or you will become the attacker. You cannot be both. New Martyrdom allows you to become the victim while you are actually the attacker. Something like a suicide bomber.

Many people confuse Martyrdom with pride (New Martyrdom). It is because there are so many that claim faiths they no nothing about. The same goes for a race.

It is the prideful people that fight to become leaders and guide those with half-truths down the path they determined correct. People need someone to follow and will create someone if they do not see someone (like the idol worshipers of the Old Testament). People also create someone to take the blame for their problems. I don't have a job because blah... I can't work because.... If Obama this... If Romney this...

I am currently enslaved by a scholarship. I must work for the company 1 year for every year of school they paid for. I might as well admit it is the US Government.... My option is to quit and repay all of the money now or throw away the next 6 years of my life earning a degree at a crappy university. I wondered many times if I was a victim or an attacker. My reasoning for being an attacker is that I chose the scholarship over military service and a far better university. It is my own attitude that will determine what I become and the Americans that once filled the sea with tea are no more. I hope that we can start a revelation soon that i may partake in it.

Occupy Wallstreet was a failure so it has been about a decade since the people have said a word (can't we all just get along?)

tldr: People do this 'cause that is what we always do. Change is effort, so, meh.